Over the past four years, San Jose police investigated 150 racial profiling or other bias allegations against city cops — yet the department’s internal affairs unit did not sustain a single complaint.

Now, the department is broadening its definition of profiling, and its new police chief is calling for more thorough looks into claims of biased behavior by cops. The city’s independent police auditor calls it a “huge” shift in the right direction, and minority community leaders say it’s about time.

San Jose police changed the policy last week, making it a violation for an officer to show any biased behavior at any time during an encounter with the public. Before, it was considered a violation only if the officer first stopped an individual solely because of race, gender or other biased reasons.

“I’m bound and determined to investigate all aspects of these allegations,” police Chief Chris Moore said. “Sometimes I get the feeling that some of the more nuanced issues may have been skipped.”

He gave no specifics. But when asked whether he felt that his officers may have gotten away with racially profiling people, the chief said: “There’s no way for me to tell. I don’t believe so, given what I know about my police officers.”

Independent Police Auditor LaDoris Cordell said the language change was “huge, it’s very significant. If these allegations are not thoroughly investigated, then we are subject to the same type of federal oversight that you have in Los Angeles. I hope that doesn’t happen in San Jose.”

Late last year the Los Angeles Police Department was criticized by the federal Department of Justice for its inadequate handling of racial profiling complaints.

Building bridges

Moore has vowed to try to repair the strained relationship between San Jose’s minorities and police, which has been accused of overly aggressive street policing and racial profiling. Last week’s change of definition is just one of a series of steps the new chief has made to show the community he is taking those issues seriously. Late last year, for example, he stopped his officers from impounding cars for a month when unlicensed drivers were nabbed for minor traffic violations, a practice many felt was unfairly targeting undocumented Latino immigrants.

Police oversight experts say San Jose’s track record of not sustaining racial profiling complaints is relatively common among major departments. Such complaints, they said, are hard to prove.

“It’s difficult to show an officer intended to discriminate,” said Philip Eure, a national police oversight leader and head of Washington, D.C.’s police oversight agency. “Yet it’s easy to show an officer pulled someone over for a lawful reason. That’s the paradox.”

Since 2002, the San Jose Police Duty Manual has read that an officer must not “initiate a contact solely” based on factors including race, color, nationality and gender. This definition clearly was hard to prove if, for example, an officer could rebut that the person had a broken tail light on his or her car. Police came under heavy scrutiny for arresting a disproportionate number of Latinos for public intoxication, some of whom alleged they were simply not drunk.

Using racial epithets and other overtly racist behavior would normally be covered by other officer guidelines, but more subtle issues may not be. An example would be if an officer orders the person to sit on a curb.

Cordell said a litmus test would be: “If an officer has a Latino man sit on the curb, then would the officer have a white man in a suit sit on a curb, if the circumstances were the same?”

The independent police auditor had complained directly to former police Chief Rob Davis about the “bias-based policing” definition, but he “did not respond.” Davis said he did respond but did not change the definition because the department was focusing on bringing in an independent social science group to analyze the department. The former chief praised the definition change as a positive step.

Angel Luna, 26, said he is frustrated that neither of his racial profiling complaints was sustained.

In one case, he said he was driving to work on the East Side with a friend when an officer pulled him over. When asked why, the officer reportedly told him it was a crack on his windshield.

The officer asked him who his parole officer was, when the last time he was arrested was, and what his immigration status was, Luna said.

Luna, a U.S. citizen who said he has no criminal record, said he was frightened and upset.

‘Afraid of the police’

“My skin, my heritage is for them an excuse to check if I have a weapon or drugs on me,” Luna said. “I have a gym membership, Netflix, a 40 hour-a-week job. But they treat you like you are the worst of the worst. I’m afraid of the police, straight up.”

The new definition brings San Jose more in line with other departments. The Sacramento Police Department, for example, has a policy that says: “Bias-based policing may also be defined as a police action based on an assumption or belief that any of the aforementioned classifications (race, etc.) have a tendency to participate or engage in criminal behavior.”

The San Francisco police policy includes a list of steps to help ensure that people do not feel they are being profiled. One step is for the officer to provide a quick explanation of why the person has been stopped.

But even though San Francisco has a broader definition of racial profiling, last year none of the 82 complaints were sustained.